About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
. republicans launched a filibuster to stop the vote and former senator chuck hagel to serve in the president's cabinet. a new vote is scheduled in 11 days. what you think about the gop's efforts and mr. hagel 'snomination? nomination?s here are the numbers -- online.also find us send us a tweet @cspanwj. here are the headlines in the morning papers. the washington times -- this is the headline in the baltimore sun -- have line in "roll call -- the headline in "roll call" -- meredith shiner joins us. how unusual is it to have the president's pick for defense secretary block at this stage? guest: it has never happen before. a senate has never filibustered the president's pick for defense secretary. the most bizarre thing, and the thing that is most frustrating to people watching this outside washington, is that a former senator hagel is a former -- is a former republican. with 58 bouts, and the reason why it was 58 was because majority leader harry reid had to switch his vote to know to bring the vote back up again after the senate comes back from recess. you have a lot of republican senators
torrey clinton. at 8:30, we will take a look at yesterday's hearing. chuck hagel -- to give you a sense of the interplay, you can see the whole exchange of questions on our web site, c- span.org. here is a section featuring senator john mccain talking to senator hagel about the comments he made about the surge in iraq. >> will you please answer the question? were you correct or incorrect when he said that the surge would be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since the vietnam? were you correct or incorrect? >> my reference -- >> are you answering the question? that is a pretty straightforward question. i would like an answer on whether you're right or wrong. you're free to elaborate than. >> i am not going to give you a yes or no answer. >> let the record show that you refuse to answer that question. please go ahead. >> if you like me to explain why a -- >> i act like an answer. >> i will not give you a yes or no. it is far more complicated to that. i will defer my judgment to history. as to the comment i made about the most dangerous foreign policy decision since
could work this week on the chuck hagel nomination. the question remains whether or not republicans will block the nomination with a filibuster. the president traveling to push for slacker gun laws. with the nation focusing on the super bowl, we want to turn to washington's role on regulating the nfl. we will use super bowl sunday to talk about government regulations when it comes to the issue of steroids or head injuries. the phone lines are open. let's begin with a look at some of the headlines courtesy of the museum. from "the san francisco chronicle" -- from "the baltimore sun" -- let's turn to the politics and policy behind the nfl. this is a story a few days ago from "the washington post." outlining a plan and a letter to the executive director of the players union. they agreed as part of a 2011 collective bargaining agreement that the players should be tested for hgh, but the two sides of that agreed. two seasons have been played without it. last weekend in new orleans, roger goodell was asked a number of questions including one on the issue of head injuries. here is more fro
is planning a preliminary vote on chuck hagel's nomination as defense secretary on friday. the president is in decatur, georgia today talking about his state of the union speech. this morning we are continuing our discussion about the president's state of the union speech tuesday night. here was one of the proposals he made. three things we should be asking. number one, how do we bring more jobs to america? two, how do we equip people with the skills they need to do the jobs? number three, how do we make sure that once they have a job, it leads to a decent living? i believe we reward the effort and determination with wages that allow working families to raise their kids and get ahead. [cheers and applause] that part of the reason why i said last night that it's time for and increase in the minimum wage, because if you work full- time, you should not be in poverty. host: at was the president. from the hill newspaper this morning -- we want to hear from you this morning whether or not you support the president's call to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour, the federal minimum wage, t
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4